Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
I respect your post Link, except the above-quoted part. I'd like to say some things, and hope this thread doesn't get kicked over to the War Forum, which I think you ought visit.
1. Calling Bush an Osama or, more especially, the US a terrorist state is as insulting to me as an American as calling me a F*er or calling a modern-day German a Nazi. In the post-9/11 era it is simply mean. Terrorist states target civilians and attempt to cause terror in the civilian population. The US is overly-nice when it comes to attempting to avoid such collateral damage, as it is unpopular with many of its citizens. And, the US does not target civilians directly. Go cite Hiroshima if you want, but I live in this century.
2. As with George Washington's beliefs, I am glad to live in a country where the government puts US interests first and where we make no permanent alliances or enemies that could hinder our future foreign relations needs. Foreign relations exist FOR me and other Americans, not for some other country.
3. You mention alturism. I think the End of Aids in Africa proposal by Bush last night was a fine example of the hundreds upon hundreds of organizations funded by the government for worldwide alturism. And we pay all of the UN's bills. And we basically are the World Bank. And, and, and. Give, give, give. We do. My taxe dollars feed mine victims in South Korea just as surely as they feed crack whores in Philly.
[edit]
3A. Just so you know, this guy Trafalgar has at least 3 different identities on that site, and often conducts conversations with himself just to stir up crap. He's a troll of the worst kind.
[end edit]
4. I STILL NEED HELP!!!! I can't edit a post on the afore-mentioned and linked forum, so I need to know how to use html to link the pic, which I have no put over at Ranchoweb. Bueller? Bueller?
|
1. As I stated in my own post, I said that Bush and Osama were the same
in a way. Without these three words I would have been insulting, but with them I enabled myself to give a decent expanation what I said. In my opinion I did not state that Bush was equal to Osama bin Laden, on the contrary. I just compared them with one another, saying that they both do what they think is right. Osama bin Laden is a terrorist to the USA/Bush (and of course to me), but on the other end Bush is an oppressor in the eyes of Osama bin Laden.
What I think differs Osama bin Laden from Bush apart from the fact that the first is a terrorist and the second is the president of the USA, is the fact that Bush virtually commits the same crimes that he detests Osama bin Laden for, and even condones them. With his 'high-tech' bombs he should, and perhaps even could, have been able to avoid
any casualties in his war in Afghanistan, and yet there were casualties. And not one or two, but a lot of them. In this way he is not that different from Osama bin Laden; he has also killed innocent people. People unaware of what was going on in the World Trade Center. They were killed by bin Laden. On the other end people that were unintentionally, but still unnecessarily killed in Afghanistan, although they were not supporting bin Laden at all.
Of course one can debate that Osama bin Laden destroyed the WTC, and with them murdered hundreds of people, on purpose, and Bush did not kill those people in Afghanistan on purpose, but the fact is that they
were killed, while it was obvious that the weaponry that the US Army was using was high-tech enough to track and destroy only the Al-Quaeda forces. And the fact that Bush stated that his War on Terrorism wasn't over after his (so-called) victory in Afghanistan makes it even more hypocrite.
Citing Hiroshima was never one of my plans, by the way, and although I believe that using a nuclear bomb was overdone, I can understand that Japan had to be stopped. But as you said; this is an entirely different issue.
2. I'm not quite sure if I understand what you mean by this point. Maybe you could enlighten me further about what you're saying.
3. Altruism is something that is desperately needed in this world, and I'm happy to see that you agree on this matter with me. Fact is though, that my entire story wasn't a rant against the entire political program of Bush. I am well aware of the fact that the USA does a lot of good things, and I greatly approve the plan to stop AIDS that Bush has promoted. But I just wanted to point out that it isn't America's role in this world to play international referee. Of course; (I love this quote) "With great power comes great responsibility", but I feel that Bush takes this 'responsibility' one step too far. Maybe altruism wasn't the right term for it, but being more open to other's thoughts, being more open to other ideas, in short: being more open to another, is certainly something that fits in the definition of the word altruism. Not only does altruism mean being social, or beneficial to others (like you said: America practically owns the World Bank, offers a new idea to stop AIDS in Africa), but it also means being more social with others. Being able to coexist (to put things in an extreme view) with each other. Being able to give in to one another.
Of course. I understand that one cannot simply forgive and forget the things that Osama bin Laden has done to America, but that is just one example. There are many others, and I think the entire Iraw-affair, which we are facing now, just illustrates perfectly what I'm talking about here.
3A. I'm glad you point that out, thank you. He did sound pretty rational in his posts, though, but I believe you perfectly that he is a ignorant troll. (Use fire or acid on its body to kill it! [img]smile.gif[/img] )